- This topic has 157 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 2 hours, 15 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
@YYA – I said “it would be just another case of Mamzerus in the Rabbanut’s records”. That says exactly what I think of the ruling in the Langer case (I would need to read the entire transcript of the case to get a full picture of the situation and understanding of the Halachos at play like i would with any other Halachik subject I read (I don’t take what Rabbonim say at face value, I want to see the sources for myself)) and what I think of the other case as well. I thought it would be obvious.
@Yankel – I’ve said what I had to say on the subject and I stand by it. I never said those Rabbonim had no integrity or yiras shamayim. What I said is that no one immune from biases, not even highly esteemed Rabbonim. There’s a reason why recusion exists, as does the term “conflict of interests”. It is also a known fact that Charedi newspapers serve as outlets for the Rabbonim, so it only stands to reason that the opinions expressed are those of said Rabbonim, only in a more vitriolic format. The Rabbonim could certainly have told the outlets to turn the level of vitriol down and to be respectful in their criticism – which they did not. Only HKB”H Himself can be described as unbiased, and even that is an insult to Him – as if such a thing could even be possible! (Definitely not!) That aside, the RZ community rejected the Kol Korei as did other communities. There really isn’t more to be said about it unless you would like to have a Halachik discussion about the application of Rabbinic authority post-Churban Bayis Sheni and the sealing of the Talmud (and by extension the complete freezing of Halacha) – and with the total exclusion of the subject of “Daas Torah” in its modern iteration.ZSK> The Rabbonim could certainly have told the outlets to turn the level of vitriol down and to be respectful in their criticism – which they did not.
more likely, that outlets were not listening to the rabbonim, and maybe rabbonim knew their limits already. There are lots of cases where rabbinical opinions show up late: turns out R Landau is against demonstrations. A year after covid after so many talmidim infected their revered teachers, we found out that R Zilberstein was sitting alone in his room all this time and then came to give a lecture behind a giant plastic fence. What stopped charedi press from posting pictures of the Rav daily before other rabbonim were niftar?
ZSK> I never said those Rabbonim had no integrity or yiras shamayim. What I said is that no one immune from biases, not even highly esteemed Rabbonim.
and this is a good example how information flows … imagine that ZSK is a well-known talmid chochom (and maybe he is) and a gadol will ask his close student Yankel about ZSK, ending with ZSK put in cherem. So, Yankel will tell his teacher what he said here. Would it be gadol’s fault that he listened to Yankel?
yankel> those rabbanims integrity and yirat shamayim totally precludes that from being the case
It may be so. I looked closely at the case of cherem of making a gadol and it seems clear that the author has great esteem of the gadol who banned the book and still describes his reliance on information from people around him. Consider this as they call in math “a proof of existence” for rabbanim making bad decisions based on bad facts. The usual explanation is that talmidei chachamim are perfect halachik machines – but they depend on the reliability of inputs, so GIGO applies. Chassidiche rebbes might overcome this and have direct access to ruach hakodesh, so if the signers were not just Litivishe, their signatures are reliable regardless of bad information they might have relied upon.
More generally, and without taking a position here, people who try to be pro-active and resolve new issues, put themselves at risk of both mistakes and accusations. Applies to many in history, both who are now roundly condemned and those who are eventually vindicated, see Rambam, Moses Mendelsohn, for example.
ZSK – WRT Rabbi Goren’s contradictory ‘psakim’. Occam’s Razor makes more sense than hiding behind “I would need to read the entire transcript” with no intention to actually do so. Something that the Rabbonim who opposed him already did, I did (the Langer case), and you also could easily do if you wanted.
Occam razor is sharp, don’t cut yourself!
In this case, Occam razor actually says that a group of rabbis does not like another group because they do not like their derech, regardless of gadlus or lack thereof.I most strenuously condemn your summary
you attribute to me that zionism is ‘holy’
you could not have been more wrong
I never said that , nor did I even insinuate that.
.
.you seem to waffle between the rabbanim being against goren or the newspapers being against him
you seem to miss something extremely basic here
the august rabbanim — those who signed on to this public psak delegitimising goren
do not have to recuse themselves because of some supposed ‘conflict of interest’
for the simple reason that there is no personal interest at all besides kvod shamayim
this is obvious to any person who is close enough to observe them on a long term basis
in your world this seems not to exist
therefore – in your world everything is personal interest
and therefore — in your world — rabbanim do follow the newspapers …. they are … followers
those rabbanim who signed — by virtue of their non personal interest,, are not followers …
they are … leaders … true leaders
thats why the public follows them
in your world the rabanim seem not to be leaders … but followers ….
which is why the public uses them … but does not follow them
—-
how many participants were there at the funerals of the signatories of this psak ???
conversely – how many participants were there at the funeral of goren ???
did his public use goren ???
or did they follow goren ???
—
re bias
Chazon ish writes in emuna uvitachon [if not mistaken] based on shulchan aruch that a rav can decide even his own meat whether it is kasher or not
and is not pasul because of personal interest
he decries the convenient excuse for not following rabanim whenever they go against the layman’s opinion
that the rav decided the way he decided , because of personal interest …
—
I personally knew some of the signatories of the psak re goren
and know many people who knew the others personally
I can assure anyone
this has nothing to do with supposed zionist leanings of goren
or any political affiliations
and for sure not as a result of any newspaper articles
this is a pure halachik issue pertaining to the specific personality of goren himself
and it was on those halachik grounds that this psak was issued
I do not know of any rabbinic figure who merited such a public psak by such a variety of klal yisrael’s greatest
and the problem lies with goren personally as opposed to the signatories
any straight thinking honest person would agree with me
.
.HaLevi,
I’m sorry, I am not going to discuss or educate you on the difference between Halacha, that is found in the Shulchan Aruch, Tur, Rambam etc versus an Agadata. The mere suggestion that you want to compare Krias Shema and לא תאכלו על הדם to the 3 oaths, which is not discussed in any Halacha seder, is a faulty understanding of the Torah.
It reminds me of ancient Jews who instead of following halacha, started following the cool medrashim. They ended up on a cross.
AAQ and ZSK – Davka the Rabbonim who signed against Goren, especially Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Elyashiv, were known to respect and have a close relationship with several prominent RZ Rabbonim. They opposed Goren because of actual things he did. There were also those within the RZ orbit who saw Goren as a ‘loose cannon’ who damaged their cause.
AAQ – If those Rabbonim would relate to ALL RZ Rabbonim as they did to Goren, then Occam’s Razor might be relevant. The reality doesn’t bear that out. On the other hand, the Razor would apply neatly to one person issuing two completely contradictory ‘psakim’, where the only צד השווה is his desire to pander to the Zionist powers that be, something he never bothered to hide or was even ashamed of.
anon1m0us said – It reminds me of ancient Jews who instead of following halacha, started following the cool medrashim. They ended up on a cross.
Don’t know who or what you are talking about. The Three Oaths are a Gemara towards the end of Kesubos, not a Midrash. (They are also mentioned in the Midrash Shir Hashirim, but that is not the SOURCE of this subject.) There are quite a few Rishonim and Achronim who considered them to be binding. Hilchos Lashon Hara, among others, are not discussed in most of the major Halacha seforim of the Rishonim, except very briefly in the Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah. Other than a few lines in Masches Arachin, and scattered מאמרי חז״ל elsewhere, most of the references to all forms of Issurei Dibbur are – Aggadita. Yet we know that Lashon Hara is is a very big deal because – it says so in the Aggadita… So the Chofetz Chaim went and collected all of the scattered Halachic references and made them into a systematic Sefer called Chofetz Chaim, and the Aggadita he called Shmiras Halashon. No one even tried to claim that he made up something יש מאין just because there was no such thing as a Sefer or even a Perek within a Sefer on הלכות לשון הרע until he came along. Aside from the Divrei Yoel, many other Poskim held the Oaths to be very serious and very real, including Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Chaim Brisker and his son Rav Velvel, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Reuven Grozovsky, Rav Eliyahu Henkin, and many more. Some of the early RZ Rabbonim discussed the issue in their works and tried to build a case to permit Zionism anyway, including Rav Kalisher and Rav Reines, but they didn’t write it off as “faulty understanding of the Torah”, something you consider yourself more qualified to judge than any of the above Rabbonim.
anon, that is circular reasoning. You are telling me that it is only Agadata because it is Agadata.
Speaking of dying on crosses, that happened mostly to people who followed their nationalistic urges, against the advice of our Chachamim. So, if the Romans punishing people are your yardstick, there you have one.
thank you for a well written summary response. to add, there are zero poskim who dismiss the shevios. even the disgraceful distortion of Torah sources that this other religion leverage to support their fake moshiach, such as the tshiva of the holy Avnei Nezer, nor a fraudulent letter from the Or Someyach, never entertain the absurd claim that we Jews are not obligated to keep the shevios. The Avnei Nezer concludes his long tshiva that Jews are not obligated to go Eretz Yisroel because of (amongst other reasons) the shevios. The fraudulent Or Someyach letter claims a situation in the 1920s that “removed the fear of the oaths”, claiming an exception to the otherwise binding reality of the shevios. I can only presume that the evil Mizrachi authors of that fraud knew that even the amharutzim they were trying to trick wouldn’t fall for the absurd “new scripture” that @anon1m0us is preaching.
Yaakov Yosef, nevertheless it is appropriate to refer to Rav Goren as Rav Goren. You can bear in mind all of the issues, but since he was, after all, a renowned scholar it is fitting to refer to him as such. It’s not like he was פורק עול ח”ו. It’s just a good habit, and you’d appreciate others doing the same to rabbis whom you venerate that they strongly disagree with.
If a Gemara tells you what you must or must not do, that is by definition an Halachah. It is not a story or a depiction, or even a theoretical punishment. Especially when the Gemara is discussing in detail how we derive all of it. And that’s after a description of Amoraim who acted upon these ideas. And, as I pointed out, the Rambam took it seriously enough to refer to the Gemara’s interpretation as Shlomo Hamelech’s plain intention of the verse.
The fact that the Magen Avrohom added certain Halachos after הלכות קריאת התורה since they were missing from the Shulchan Aruch and they were important enough to be made aware of, tells you that the Shulchan Aruch wasnever meant to replace the Torah. It was meant, as the Mechaber wrote, to codify what was written in the Tur/Beis Yosef, which was the daily practice—as the Tur describes in his introduction.
Nor does the Tur/Shulchan Aruch explain the importance of leaving Yeshiva to join the army so that you can take part of potential battles.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.